PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Chappie]

Let's rejoin the Super League. No relegation. No UEFA. No EPL. What's not to like.

You would be playing the same wankers who are out to shaft us and they would continue to shaft us.

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

Let's rejoin the Super League. No relegation. No UEFA. No EPL. What's not to like.

The only problem with that is that every other original ESL club hates us with a passion. They'd stitch us up at the first opportunity as well.

 

[WestGorton]

You would be playing the same wankers who are out to shaft us and they would continue to shaft us.

I know

 

[WestGorton]

The only problem with that is that every other original ESL club hates us with a passion. They'd stitch us up at the first opportunity as well.

I was being ironic

 

[MMA]

You would be playing the same wankers who are out to shaft us and they would continue to shaft us.

Meh..
We'd beat the lot of em with pep.
And then they'd try to kick us out of that aswell.

 

[Dribble]

It's all part of the propaganda campaign, it's kicked off in full swing now running up to the start of the PL proceedings. Expect much much much more of this unfortunately

Which suggests to me there's more to Masters' commons comment than first met the eye...

"There is a date set for that proceeding, unfortunately I can't tell you when that is but it is progressing."

I think the hearing could possible be currently ongoing. It was the Fail who speculated it would commence in Autumn. This was never confirmed by the PL or City.

 

[halfcenturyup]

The FFP rule is that you can only spend what you earn via normal revenue. SM could have lent us billions but we couldn't spend it. The whole premise of the UEFA and PL cases was that he'd given us money disguised as revenue.

But the problem with UEFA's argument (and presumably the PL's) is that they accepted Etihad's sponsorship was broadly fair value. CAS certainly agreed with that.

Part of the PL's case will probably be around not declaring Etihad as a related party. That's not going to wash I suspect and even if it did, the central fact is that the Etihad sponsorship was fair value, whether Etihad is or isn't a related party.

Hence my point that the annual accounts weren't mis-stated. If the Etihad contract was at fair value, properly serviced and paid in full, the accounts are fine. They would be "more" mis-stated by taking a huge part of fair value sponsorship income out and accounting for it as equity. So, if the accounts aren't mis-stated, they have no serious contract breaches with which to charge the club under their own rules, apart from some possible disclosures.

 

[Blue_Lightsaber]

Let's rejoin the Super League. No relegation. No UEFA. No EPL. What's not to like.

You're missing the point. They'll join the Super League and say no Arabs allowed and definitely not City!

 

[nellyonthewing]

Just as an aside I’d love to see the audit trail of where Eufa and EPL share our the millions in fines e.g £10 million from us - Platini’s private jet or ‘legal fees’ !!!!

 

[Chorleyblue]

Getting sick of it and letting our reputation being dragged through the mud. At this point I don't care about the trophies. There is no going back to having a 'normal ' reputation.
I've always swallowed the argument about ' playing the long game' and ' just wait and see'.
There is no end to this, even if both bodies came out and said sorry.
I'm angry - rant

 

[halfcenturyup]

My understanding of projectriver's posts is certainly that the PL is going to have to present very compelling evidence indeed to the IC because of the gravity of the charges. He believes however that our case depends on the question of sponsorship and in particular the funding of the sponsorship. I believe he maintains that the PL has to find evidence of deception and/or fraudulent intent or they cannot surmount the obstacle of time barring. Deception and fraudulent intent are (I submit!) matters which an IC is in no way competent to decide. If they did City would appeal to the courts immediately - unless of course we were banged to rights!!! In which case we may try to take the punishment but it seems unlikely.

I do suspect that I'm getting hung up on a right of appeal and yet I share the certainty of others that we will never need to consider an appeal. "We ain't don nuffink' me lord".

Agree on the first part about cogency of evidence.

Not on the second part about the competence of the IP to decide on a matter of fraud. That was my first thought as well, until it was pointed out to me that civil courts decide on matters of fraud all the time on the balance of probabilities.

 

[Manc in London]

Ceferin would say that. He is toeing the corporate line.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Hence my point that the annual accounts weren't mis-stated. If the Etihad contract was at fair value, properly serviced and paid in full, the accounts are fine. They would be "more" mis-stated by taking a huge part of fair value sponsorship income out and accounting for it as equity. So, if the accounts aren't mis-stated, they have nothing serious contract breaches with which to charge the club under their own rules, apart from some possible disclosures.

Quite. I suspect that the core of the PL's charge under the first heading of the requirement to provide accurate accounts is that if the supposed disguised equity investment was taken out, our accounts would show lower commercial revenue and therefore reduced income. Hence the accounts we did provide were (in their view) mis-stated.

Given the outcome at CAS, as I've said before, it's quite bizarre they should choose to pursue this line.

 

[bumbleblue]

Do we have any friends at all anywhere? That **** Ceferin has sent me into a very angry place. I was fairly relaxed about all this at one point but am fucking raging, fair and transparent processes, do me a fucking favour. Hope Sheikh M buys the times/Telegraph whatever ,and sacks the cunts.

 

[Dribble]

Just seen this. Fantastic work.

All down to you mate. Your YouTube appearance gave our fans the simple layman's explanation we'd all been crying out for.

It's obviously more complex than my post, but you gave us all a good grounding of the situation, so again, a big thank you... )(

 

[Dribble]

any idea what can be written down as a loss in current PL ffp rules?

just looking at Newcastle lost 70m last season, another 70m the year before and 15m in 20-21. thats about 155m loss and the limit is 105m in 3 years.

Hence why they can't afford Philips & either need a massive sponsorship boost, or to sell a high value player or two before July to avoid an Everton.

Richest club in the world or not, this is FFP/PSR at work as the Cartel Clubs intended.

 

[Cityfan1977]

This is going to far now, City doesn't answer anything so that's why people can say what they want. There is ongoing investigation for fuck sake, he is a lawyer why would he say this it's just unbelievable.
I am very sad and though I love us winning everything and playing such a breathtaking football all this ongoing shit is taking alot of the joy away.

 

[i kne albert davy]

You would be playing the same wankers who are out to shaft us and they would continue to shaft us.

Only if we’re winning, let them win we’d have no problems.

 

[bladdered]

I thought City had spent the last 7 months arse licking UEFA to get a seat at their grubby table and a get a shot at hosting a CL Final? Well Ceferin has proven you cannot trust these twats. Just tell them once and for all to fck right off and then fck right off again. Always have been and always will be utter cunts.

 

[pauls]

Pretty shocking what he's saying in my opinion...he is basically saying he thinks we got away with it because our lawyers were better on the day, not because we were innocent... scandalous accusation when you think about it

What Rumbsy should have followed up with is , "if you were that confident why didn't you appeal then"? but if course that doesn't suit the agenda.